[tialaramex]

> It doesn’t change the fact that (presumably) nobody made a proposal to the C++ standard.

There were proposals about this for many years. C++ is just a terrible programming language, standardized by a committee (WG21) which exists in large part to boost the ego of one man, Bjarne Stroustrup.

N3851 for example wants to name this idea "array_view" which like "string_view" is an impressively unwieldy name for a core language feature, because of course neither of these were actually proposed as core language features even though that's what they naturally should be -- but it is basically the slice type or as you (and modern C++) call it a "span".

It's true that you can't change facts but what you've got here was a belief which was unfounded, not a fact.

[spacechild1]

> There were proposals about this for many years.

I wrote "presumably", but you are 100% correct. I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

N3851 actually deals with multi-dimensional spans and goes way beyond a simple slice/span type. To me it seems closer to std::mdspan than std::span.

The earliest proposal I could find that does propose something similar to std::span dates back to 2012: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n33...

I really don't understand why this was not pursued further. At the very least, this should have made it into C++17 together with std::string_view.

> because of course neither of these were actually proposed as core language features even though that's what they naturally should be

Should it really? What would this even look like in C++? IMO std::span works perfectly fine as a library type.

> C++ is just a terrible programming language, standardized by a committee (WG21) which exists in large part to boost the ego of one man, Bjarne Stroustrup.

That's certainly not the reason why it was standardized. Pre-C++98 was wild west with every compiler offering there own (incompatible) idea of what C++ is. Yes, there are many problems with design by committee in general (and the C++ committee in particular), but there was a very good reason for standardizing the language. The committee is not a one man show and there are many occasions where Bjarne has publicly voiced his frustration and disagreement.

[tialaramex]

> The committee is not a one man show

Of course it isn't, all the great egotists need a parade of sycophants to heap praise on them, you've doubtless seen modern US "Cabinet meetings" in which TV hosts newly elevated to run parts of the US government compete with experienced politicians as they all try to offer the most effusive praise for their snoring God King.

Personally, I'd throw up, but then I'm very much of Groucho Marx's view on such things.

[spacechild1]

Are your seriously comparing the C++ standard committee to the Trump administration? I know you have an axe to grind, but this is getting ridiculous.

Where exactly have you seen this "parade of sycophants" in the C++ standards committee?

As far as I know, Bjarne is just a regular committee members with just as many votes as everyone else and no veto powers. The committee frequently accepts or rejects proposals against his will. For a recent example, see his harsh criticism of the new 'contracts' feature in C++26.

[tialaramex]

Yes, I am seriously making that comparison. It's not as bad of course but it's certainly enough to make me cringe.

> Where exactly have you seen this "parade of sycophants" in the C++ standards committee?

AIUI The committee itself operates under the "Chatham House Rule" in which participants agree not to tell anybody who said anything and so we can only see group outcomes for the committee itself. For example 100% affirmative votes for Bjarne's "Profiles" proposal. At 100% everybody who had the opportunity to vote "Against" has to admit that er, they didn't, because that's just maths - but you won't now find anybody who was enthusiastic, somehow a room full of people who all now remember being uncertain voted affirmatively anyway. How about that.

> Bjarne is just a regular committee member

For almost a decade, WG21 has a "Direction Group" with a handful of members which insists that while as you say everybody is just a "regular committee member" their group ought to set the "direction" for the language and thus the committee. The exact membership of the Direction Group varies over time, but of course Bjarne Stroustrup has always been a member of this group. The group (whatever its present membership) writes only unanimously, which means everything it says has been agreed by Bjarne Stroustrup, and it cites as its reference for how to set the direction several books about C++ all written by that same Bjarne Stroustrup.

So, sure, Bjarne is "just a regular committee member" in the same way that Britain's Prime Minister is "just a regular Member of Parliament" that is, very much in theory but not at all in practice.

[spacechild1]

If Bjarne was so powerful, how come they voted contracts into C++26 despite his strong concerns? How come he publicly vents his frustration with the direction the language is taking?

[tialaramex]

Bjarne isn't god and I didn't say he was. So no, he isn't all-powerful.

Bjarne has always been frustrated by the failures of C++ and has always blamed them on other people. He's an egotist, they're always like that, I find it exhausting.